Morning Report: Janet Yellen soothes the markets 9/25/15

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Brent Nyitray

Markets are higher this morning after Janet Yellen soothed concerns over global growth and said the Fed is probably still going to raise rates this year. Bonds and MBS are down.

I see a headline coming across the tape that House Speaker John Boehner is going to resign from Congress, according to the New York Times. Don’t see anything on the NYT site, but if so, this is big news.

The third revision to second quarter GDP came in at +3.9%. Personal consumption was revised upward to 3.6% from 3.1%. Inflation remains more or less at the Fed’s target rate of 2%. 3Q GDP forecasts are much lower, in the 1% – 2% range.

Consumer sentiment slipped in September, according to the University of Michigan. This is the lowest reading in a year.

Janet Yellen spoke yesterday, and said the Fed will probably still raise rates this year, however they were willing to let the labor market run hot for a while. The markets were cheered by these statements. She mentioned getting discouraged workers back into the workforce, and that is somewhat new – historically, they have focused on unemployment and wage inflation. Here is a deeper dive into what she was talking about. Interestingly, the Fed thinks that early on ZIRP had little to no effect on the economy, and that only now, are we starting to see the economic benefits of ZIRP. IMO, it has always been about real estate prices. Once real estate bottomed in 2011 / 2012 the economy began a more robust recovery.

The government has taken an even more expansive view of housing discrimination. Now, it doesn’t matter if your lending track record is okay. Not having enough bricks and mortar branches in minority neighborhoods is a crime nowadays. Apparently the government had no issue with Hudson City Bank’s actual lending practices, just the location of their branches. The government got $35 million out of them for this apparent “redlining.”

Filed under: Morning Report |

« »

26 Responses

  1. jnc4p, on September 25, 2015 at 9:31 am said:

    Boehner resignation piece.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/09/25/boehner-resigns/

    NoVA, I presume you didn’t know about this ahead of time?

    Like

    Reply
  2. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 25, 2015 at 10:17 am said:

    Interesting that Boehner’s career died in the 90’s due to a failed coup against Gingrich and is dying now due to a coup, which you could argue would have failed because Democrats would have bailed him out.

    Like

    Reply
  3. jnc4p, on September 25, 2015 at 10:21 am said:

    I don’t think the Democrats would have bailed him out. They like the dysfunctional Republican narrative too much.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Brent Nyitray, on September 25, 2015 at 10:22 am said:

    So who is the likely replacement? Ryan?

    Like

    Reply
  5. jnc4p, on September 25, 2015 at 10:23 am said:

    Krugman just lies these days:

    “But Ronald Reagan insisted that government is always the problem, never the solution, and this has become dogma on the right.”

    Actual Reagan quote:

    “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

    http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm

    Like

    Reply
  6. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 25, 2015 at 10:29 am said:

    It’ll be McCarthy.

    Enserling would be an interesting choice though.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 25, 2015 at 10:29 am said:

    Krugman used to work for Reagan.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Brent Nyitray, on September 25, 2015 at 10:39 am said:

    He has been wrong for a long time too… If his Rx worked, Japan’s economy wouldn’t have been stagnant since 1990…

    Like

    Reply
  9. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 25, 2015 at 12:10 pm said:

    Meant to write Henserling.

    Like

    Reply
  10. novahockey, on September 25, 2015 at 1:02 pm said:

    I did not know about Boeher’s plan. If anything, not seeking re-election is as far as I would have bet.

    Like

    Reply
  11. novahockey, on September 25, 2015 at 1:04 pm said:

    apparently, nobody new. McCarthy and Scalise found out this morning.

    Like

    Reply
  12. jnc4p, on September 25, 2015 at 4:06 pm said:

    Sigh, these guys are the fact based writers?

    “Harwood also asks, “How does eliminating the estate tax help anybody’s right to rise? That tax only applies to people who have made it big time — they’ve risen.” Bush’s reply is pretty amazing:

    Well, they’re dead. If they’ve lived a good life, outside the money they’ve made, they’re up in heaven looking down on us …

    What we’ve suggested is that a family asset doesn’t get taken away. When someone does sell the asset — the next generation — they’re paying on the full amount of the appreciation. That’s the compromise position. And that allows for second-generation businesses to continue to flourish. People have earned this through good fortune and a lot of hard work and taking risks. I don’t think you should take that away from families.

    … And there is your most honest Bush answer of the interview. Giving a huge tax break to people who have inherited an estate exceeding $10 million (the current tax-free exemption level) has so little to do with the “Right to Rise” that Bush can’t even come up with a rationale. He just explains that he thinks they should be able to keep their entire inheritance tax-free because that is his idea of fairness.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/jeb-clinton-was-lucky-my-brother-was-unlucky.html?wpsrc=nymag

    Eliminating the stepped up basis isn’t “keep[ing] their entire inheritance tax-free”. It’s about when you pay the tax.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 25, 2015 at 4:42 pm said:

    Goes back to what the purpose of taxation is.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Michigoose, on September 26, 2015 at 11:43 am said:

    “Transmisogynist”

    That’s funny.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Brent Nyitray, on September 26, 2015 at 4:08 pm said:

    Rule #1 of carousing in Southeast Asia: Always check under the hood before you drive it home…

    Like

    Reply
  17. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 26, 2015 at 4:31 pm said:

    Sounds like that was spoken from experience.

    And Transmisogistic to boot.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Brent Nyitray, on September 26, 2015 at 4:33 pm said:

    Olongapo City was an adult Disneyland..

    Like

    Reply
  20. Brent Nyitray, on September 26, 2015 at 5:56 pm said:

    Manila: too dangerous… Pattaya Beach all the way..

    Like

    Reply
  21. Brent Nyitray, on September 26, 2015 at 6:06 pm said:

    Also, Olangapo City had the most amazing tribute bands. I have never ever seen such flawless reproductions.. You could close your eyes and swear you were hearing 1985 Van Halen..

    Like

    Reply
  22. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 26, 2015 at 6:28 pm said:

    Curious if he’ll be asked about “the unique reasons” he’s talking about. If not, why not?

    “This is just something that has been a regular feature of all of our presidential campaigns, except in 2008 for unique reasons,” Mr. Clinton said, without elaborating on why he believed President Obama did not face similar Republican-led efforts to derail his candidacy.

    Is this worthy of a follow up?

    “I think that – that there are lots of people who wanted there to be a race for different reasons. And they thought the only way they could make it a race was a full-scale frontal assault on her. And so this email thing became the biggest story in the world.”

    Like

    Reply
  23. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on September 28, 2015 at 9:21 am said:

    Not voting for Trumbull, but he has a point here.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Kevin S. Willis, on September 28, 2015 at 10:46 am said:

    @mcwing: “Curious if he’ll be asked about “the unique reasons” he’s talking about.”

    Everybody who he’s talking to know what he means. The Republicans thought a black man running for president in America would be easily defeated, while Hillary would clearly beat any GOP candidate (because, in this circumstance, the Republicans believe white women would be easily elective but black men could not be), so they let their racism deceive them and did not attack Obama, in order that Obama could defeat Hillary and thus guarantee a GOP victory (or so those racist GOPpers thought!)

    No reason to talk about it in detail, where it could get someone in trouble.

    Like

    Reply

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.